Pelosi: Any Deal Must Increase Tax Rates; Majority of House Has Pledged Not To

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Pelosi: Any Deal Must Increase Tax Rates; Majority of House Has Pledged Not To

U.S. House of Representatives minority leader and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now saying any "deal" to avert the financial "fiscal cliff" Must include a tax increase on the "rich".

She is continuing the message from Democrats that it will be the Republicans fault if everything expires and we all pay more taxes starting in January.

Of course, I believe that a tax increase for everybody is their hidden goal.

She focuses on blaming the House majority of Republicans. But the greater problem is in the U.S. Senate where Democrats have a majority.

IMO the Democrat "strategy" is to force a "no deal" atmosphere and preserve their cherished "blame game" agenda.

In reality, tax increases won't put a dent in the national debt of $16 trillion, and it's not even close to reducing the annual spending deficits.

This whole thing sounds more like a ruse. I bet they have a different target in mind.


(CNSNews.com) - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday that there can be no deal to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff” the federal government faces at the end of the year unless congressional Republicans agree to increase income-tax rates on higher income earners.

However, a majority of the current House of Representatives and a majority of the newly elected House that will convene in January have pledged to the American people that they will not raise the tax rates.

ABC’s Martha Raddatz asked Pelosi: “Could you accept a deal that does not include tax rate increases for the wealthy? We have seen talk about a possible compromise that would leave rates the same, but cap deductions for high-income earners. Is that something that's acceptable?

“No,” said Pelosi. ........................

Pelosi: Any Deal Must Increase Tax Rates; Majority of House Has Pledged Not To



Related Thread
Eliminating Bush Tax Cuts Would Barely Cover October Deficit

edit on Nov-18-2012 by xuenchen because:





posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
The government already takes too much money. We need to cut spending. Start with a 25% cut to everything across the board. Eliminate all foreign aid. End the wars and bring the troops home. End the fed. Get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN. We can go from there.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
The government has already cut too many taxes. We need to raise revenue. Start with a 25% increase on everyone making more than $1 million. Eliminate all corporate tax breaks. End the wars and bring the troops home. We can go from there.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
The government has already cut too many taxes. We need to raise revenue. Start with a 25% increase on everyone making more than $1 million. Eliminate all corporate tax breaks. End the wars and bring the troops home. We can go from there.


How much would that amount to ?

How long would it take to balance the annual spending deficits and pay off the national debt ?

Maybe you are on to something.

But the Congress won't listen unless you have the facts and figures !!



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Personally, I think we need vision and leadership ...and we have none. The same old nonsense tried for the 20th time won't solve anything but filling airtime for political brownie points on vote day.

Vision would be looking at the 70+ thousand pages of tax code which only GOT that big by countless thousands of little rules and exceptions written for little political favors and agreements and saying enough! We need to cut this thing down to the size of a booklet!

Tax rates aren't the problem IMO and turning rich people into middle class people leaves damn few to own the corps and businesses which must remain to hire anyone. Loopholes and politics in the tax code, on the other hand, probably costs an outrageous amount just to think up and administer but absolutely makes enough loopholes in every conceivable description to consider Swiss cheese downright solid. General Electric seemed just a bit light on paying IT'S taxes here recently...to be exceptionally kind about it. Loopholes...endless loopholes.

Of course those 70,000+ pages also form what gives politicians of both sides a good % of their real power. The kind that goes way beyond what the Constitution ever envisioned they should have. An honest politician would attack the CODE, not look to add another page to it.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Why don't you ask DarthMuerte how much of a dent we'll put in the deficit and the debt through cutting alone? Why are you only concerned with my idea of raising revenue?

I mean...we can just go over the fiscal cliff and end up raising taxes on everyone and cutting $1 trillion from the government. That will reduce the deficit to a surplus in less than two years and cut our debt in half but...I don't hear a lot of clamor for having that happen.

We need to cut spending and raise revenues.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
You know how many kinds of BS this is:

1, No matter what the Gop will get blamed
2. No matter what the Gop will get blamed.
3. Raising taxes on the evil rich will take more money from those who are already paying more money because the more you make the more you pay.
4. Raising taxes on the rich while taxes on the middle class get cut who are already taking more out of the system than returning to it.
5 47 percent of Americans have zero tax liability, and increase the tax burden on those who are already paying more.
6. Which leads us back to the Gop will get blamed no matter what.

Between ss,,medicare,medicaid,welfare there are over 200 million Americans on the government dole that can't be paid for now, and the rinse,and repeat tax the rich like it is going to pay for anything whatsoever.

And as the lie goes they are "asking the rich to pay more" No they aren't they are telling them to pay more as if they have any choice.

The Gop better stick to their guns cause it doesn't matter they will get blamed no matter what so might as well do some good out of that whole dog and pony show.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I don't think allowing a previous tax cut to expire should qualify as a tax increase. The expiration was written into the original legislation. I think it's a good idea to bump the cutoff from 250K up to 500K.

These expiring tax cuts shouldn't cause any serious squeeze on the wealthy, or the economy.

Beyond that, the Democrats should seriously entertain Romney's plan of raising revenue by limiting deductions.

The OP is correct, though, that spending is the more crucial side of the equation. There is room for spending cuts in every federal department, and a budget of around 3 trillion should be the goal by 2020.

edit on 11/18/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: wrote billion instead of trillion



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Why don't you ask DarthMuerte how much of a dent we'll put in the deficit and the debt through cutting alone? Why are you only concerned with my idea of raising revenue?
The 2012 budget was roughly 3.6 trillion. Cutting 25% across the board means 900 billion immediate savings FIRST YEAR! Ending the wars and bringing home the troops minimum of 100 billion saved FIRST YEAR. So far 1 Trillion cut FIRST YEAR. Cut all foreign aid 50 billion(we already cut 25% so 37.5 billion) so, approximate running total in the first year 1.0375 Trillion dollars.


Originally posted by links234I mean...we can just go over the fiscal cliff and end up raising taxes on everyone and cutting $1 trillion from the government. That will reduce the deficit to a surplus in less than two years and cut our debt in half but...I don't hear a lot of clamor for having that happen.
Or better yet, we can let the economy crash and do a total reset from zero.


Originally posted by links234We need to cut spending and raise revenues.
No. The government is like a shopaholic woman with her ex-husband's credit cards. If you give them any more they will look for more ways to "invest it"; in vote buying. Time to make them go cold turkey. Cut up the credit cards.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Why don't you ask DarthMuerte how much of a dent we'll put in the deficit and the debt through cutting alone? Why are you only concerned with my idea of raising revenue?

I mean...we can just go over the fiscal cliff and end up raising taxes on everyone and cutting $1 trillion from the government. That will reduce the deficit to a surplus in less than two years and cut our debt in half but...I don't hear a lot of clamor for having that happen.

We need to cut spending and raise revenues.


OK....

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
The government already takes too much money. We need to cut spending. Start with a 25% cut to everything across the board. Eliminate all foreign aid. End the wars and bring the troops home. End the fed. Get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN. We can go from there.
How much of a dent we'll put in the deficit and the debt through cutting alone?
 



reply to post by links234
 


I mean...we can just go over the fiscal cliff and end up raising taxes on everyone and cutting $1 trillion from the government. That will reduce the deficit to a surplus in less than two years and cut our debt in half but...I don't hear a lot of clamor for having that happen.
Have you done your calculations yet ?

Remember the CBO says problems will occur...
CBO: Fiscal cliff will mean recession, rise in unemployment {Republicans will get the blame for this too if and when.....}


 
ETA: DarthMuerte answered already ... not bad





edit on Nov-18-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

Already answered, at least partly. I don't know how much we will save from ending the fed. I suspect a buttload. We need to audit it to find out the truth before real savings can be known.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
See/ I knew this was going to happen. The fiscal cliff is just a way they can blame those evil republicans. It is so they can get back their 2 decade long run of democratic control. Its all a game to them. And the bad thing is if the republicans dont agree to the tax hike they still get the tax hike after the cuts go into effect. LOSE LOSE situation,thanks BHOENEIR for that fiscal cliff agreement ya rube.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Well to damn bad if we are going to play the blame game let's lay it out :



And then:



So who put us on the fiscal cliff eh?

Pelosi and her supporters that 787 billion dollar stimulus didn't help nor the care act nor any of the recent 6000 regulations.

And these are for the person who u2'd me calling me a "liar".



edit on 18-11-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Ultimately that just proves that we need to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% and]/b] cut spending.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Can't tax your way to prosperity.

Never has worked in the history of the world.

CUT SPENDING.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by neo96
 


Ultimately that just proves that we need to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% and]/b] cut spending.


Not good enough.

Not enough revenues.

They need to get the unemployment rate (remember that thing) down to under 5%.

edit on Nov-18-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I think many of you are making an ages old mistake.Liberals are unable to be reasoned with, they will only ever listen those who share their mindset.

They always believe that "the evil rich" dont pay their share, and that the low end of the totem pole deserves others stuff for some unknown and incomprehensible reason.

I am in the low end of the scale, and I dont take any "handouts", I work for what have. Yet even being in the low end, I dont see how :taking" what others have earned and "giving"it to those that havent "earned" it will fix the situation.

The only hope is that the government will stop spending money we dont have, and learn to live within its means.

Taking money from the rich will not help us, it wont even keep the wolves away for more than a couple days longer.

Raising taxs during a financial situation like the one we are currently in, will only make matters worse.

Anyone thinking "the rich" dont pay "their share" is not even living in reality, they are already paying more than 75% of the people in this country.

Also of worthy mention, is the simple to understand fact, that if you tax the Walton family more, they will simply raise the price of their goods, so they maintain the same profit margins.

Raising taxes on the rich, is the same as raising the minimum wage, it doesnt help anyone at all, and only makes things worse across the board, by lowering those above the poverty line down to it, it doesnt in any way at all ever, raise anyone up out of it.

For example, a simple math problem- We will say "mike" makes $8.00 an hour, and "sandy makes the minimum wage of $4.25. When they raised the minimum wage to $7.25, mike didnt get a pay raise did he? Nopers, not at all, and as he was making close to 2 times the minimum wage, he was doing alright, now though, he is right at the line, and at the lowest possible denominator, where previously he was 2 times above it.

On the opposite side of the coin, did "sandy get raised up out of poverty? Nopers again, as mckey Ds simply raised their prices to compensate for her raised minimum wage.So yes now Sandy is bringing home more money every week, but now all goods cost more, so she doesnt actually have any more buying power.

See this is how inflation works, yes you might have "more" dollar bills in your pocket, but when they are worth less, everything will require more to purchase said goods and services, so it is not any better, unless you are the kind of person that thinks it is better to make $1,000,000 a week and have bread cost $85,000 a loaf, because at least your wallet is swollen with useless paper.

Just my 2 cents, take it or leave it, but dont deny the facts, they are plain to see.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by solidguy
 


Seemed to work in the 50's and 60's and 80's and 90's.

Why wouldn't it work now?

reply to post by xuenchen
 


So...giving the wealthy more money (by maintaining these tax breaks) means they're just going to start hiring people because they have a few extra thousand dollars? You don't honestly believe that 'job creators' hire people just because they can, do you?

Besides, even you have to admit that some revenue is better than no revenue. Can you at least admit to that?

For the third and, hopefully, final time. I believe we need to CUT SPENDING and raise revenues. Not just one or the other.

reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


We have a regressive system with all the loop holes we allow for the wealthy. No one is going to argue that someone making $100,000 and paying 15% or their income is paying less than someone making $50,000 and paying 20%. That system isn't fair to the guy making $50,000 though, is it? If you think it is then you don't understandwhat it means to make minimum wage and need food stamps just to be able to eat on a regular basis.

We can't continually allow the wealthy to dictate how our lives operate, if they pay us less to maintain their bottom line then we strike. Look what it did to Hostess. The executives raided the pension funds of the employees, without asking, and paid the companies debts before filing for bankruptcy.

Reagan fired the air traffic controllers and the FAA was worse off for it. Hostess cut the pay and benefits of its employees at staggering levels and now they no longer exist.

You're not getting screwed by the government, you're getting screwed by your employers. You're just too attached to the concept, not even the reality, but the concept for 'freedom' to see for yourself.
edit on 18-11-2012 by links234 because: My coding is terrible today.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
edit on 18-11-2012 by neo96 because: nevermind



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by solidguy
 


Seemed to work in the 50's and 60's and 80's and 90's.

Why wouldn't it work now?

reply to post by xuenchen
 


So...giving the wealthy more money (by maintaining these tax breaks) means they're just going to start hiring people because they have a few extra thousand dollars? You don't honestly believe that 'job creators' hire people just because they can, do you?

Besides, even you have to admit that some revenue is better than no revenue. Can you at least admit to that?

For the third and, hopefully, final time. I believe we need to CUT SPENDING[/B] and raise revenues. Not just one or the other.


They can't exactly re-write the whole tax code before Jan 1st can they.

All they need to do is extend the tax rates and then do a tax code overhaul with the new Congress next year.

Simple.

Raising the "high end" rates could certainly be worked in at that time, but not now.

I still say the Dems are on a different mission ..... like maybe a "blame game" maintenance project to get more votes in 2014.

They will fool a lot of people.

They need to get business on a hiring spree, not a stagnant part-time frenzy.





top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join